Throughout the history of the United States, the struggle between government, the scientific community, and the public has been an ardent one. On January 17, 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered his farewell address to Americans. Although most of his speech was devoted to the role of the American state in advancing international peace and continuous growth, President Eisenhower also paid attention to other seemingly unrelated issues, including the importance of scientific research and the way government and public policy could influence the technology-scientific revolution. More than 50 years have passed since then, but scientists and media scholars keep arguing what Eisenhower meant when he described government contract as a substitute for genuine scientific research and authentic curiosity. Now as President Trump has announced his decision to exit the global climate agreement and withdraw his support of global warming research, questions of the government-science relationships reappear, creating a new political and policy agenda.
Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered his farewell address on January 17, 1961. The focal point of his argument was that the United States and the developed world could not maintain peace and stability without investing in its military establishment (Eisenhower). According to Eisenhower, “a vital element in keeping peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.” The statement can be interpreted in a number of ways, but primary among others is the role of scientific research in refining the country’s military arsenal. While presidents before and after Eisenhower made public support for scientific research and industrial development part of their political agenda, President Eisenhower expressed a different perspective on the government’s relationships with science. Throughout his farewell speech, Eisenhower reminded the American nation of the need to maintain a reasonable balance among various national programs. He insisted on the importance of reviewing the costs and hopes, advantages and disadvantages of each policy option (Eisenhower). Still, the most controversial and memorable was his reference to the technological and scientific elite.
The 20th century was the time of dramatic innovations. Any President who ever tried to question the unquestionable value of government investments in scientific research and technological progress would catch his voters by surprise. That was the case of Eisenhower, who said:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
President Eisenhower was decisive in his ambition to limit the effects of government and public service on scientific research and technological advancement. He feared that the power of the money provided by the American government to fund research and development activities could shift then priorities and replace the reality of American scientific needs with fake resources and unnecessary expenses. More than 50 years have passed since then, but the public keeps arguing what Eisenhower meant when he referred to the captive potentials of the scientific and technology elite. As the world of the 21st century is struggling to take the latest achievements of technological and scientific research, questions of government support of and involvement in research activities continue to circulate.
Today’s media professionals and researchers keep arguing if President Eisenhower was serious about the misbalances of scientific research or he simply wanted to limit the emerging power of the scientific and technology elite. On the one hand, Eisenhower was known for his support of scientific progress in many spheres of public performance. In fact, he was the first President in U.S. history to have a science advisor (Leary). On the other hand, President Eisenhower might have witnessed the controversies surrounding the synergy of science and the military. Living in the era of the Cold War, Eisenhower tried to address the political and public anxieties about science and its contribution to peace and stability in the future. The development of the nuclear power field raised new concerns about the role of science in maintaining peace and keeping the American society healthy. At that point of history, the global community had fresh memories of the Second World War and had no confidence that the Cold War would not result in a new military crisis. These conflicts persist, as science works both for the benefit of the humanity and as a driver of military developments used by terrorists. The latest decisions made by President Donald Trump reinforce these controversies, creating an entirely new political and social agenda.
A few days ago, President Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the global climate agreement. His decision marks a culmination of the changes and decisions initiated by Trump in the wake of his presidency. The decision sheds new light on the relations between government and the scientific elite: it is possible to assume that the country which does not participate in global sustainability initiatives will not support future research in this field. President Trump justifies his decision by the fact that collective responsibility and international environmental obligations limit America’s political freedoms and compromise its domestic political interests (Shear). Trump’s decision to give up the current environmental priorities also opens new venues for the rapid industrial development within American borders. To some extent, these actions echo the concerns articulated by President Eisenhower in his farewell speech. By exiting the global climate agreement, President Trump may also cut the amount of funds provided in support of sustainability and environmental research, thus reducing the power of the scientific elites that have been fighting against global warming for years. These actions may also strengthen the voice of industrial manufacturers that claim their commitment to the highest standards of environmental safety.
The truth is that the line between scientific progress and the demonization of technology elites has always been blurred. On the one hand, the national government is in a position to finance the advances in science and technology that benefit its citizens. Historically, the U.S. was the leader in most areas of scientific research and a role model for the developed world. On the other hand, major political decisions should be made taking into account the needs, expectations, and priorities of the American majority. Trump’s decision reflects the legacy of Eisenhower’s concerns, but it contradicts the emerging awareness of climate change as a serious public and social threat. Eisenhower was right: government should not act solely in the interests of the research elite. However, that does not mean that government should give up its support of the most pertinent research initiatives when the need for such initiatives is obvious. The fears and anxieties communicated by Eisenhower imply the need for the future generations to be cautious in their research and technology decisions, but not in ways that present a barrier to progress.
In conclusion, more than fifty years ago, President Eisenhower expressed his fears of the growing domination of the scientific and technology elite over the major public interests. His fears had considerable effects on the scientific community in America, followed by the decision of President Trump to exit the global climate agreement. The current President does not believe in the reality of global warming, which is why he does not want to see how other countries impose new environmental responsibilities on the American nation. His actions set a new political and policy agenda, but they also distort the true meaning of Eisenhower’s message, which was for the progress and advancement of the American people and against the financial speculations that could make this progress unfeasible.
- Eisenhower, Dwight D. “Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation.” Kennedy Assassination Home Page, 17 Jan 1961, http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm. Accessed on 6 June 2017.
- Leary, Warren E. “After 50 Years, Eisenhower’s Warnings against a Scientific Elite Still Cause Consternation.” American Association for the Advancement of Science, 11 Feb 2011, https://www.aaas.org/news/after-50-years-eisenhower-s-warnings-against- scientific-elite-still-cause-consternation. Accessed on 6 June 2017.
- Shear, Michael D. “Trump Will Withdraw U.S. from Paris Climate Agreement.” The New York Times, 1 June 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/trump-paris- climate-agreement.html.
